From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hendricks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 3, 1995
214 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

April 3, 1995

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Mackston, J.).


Ordered the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his request to charge the jury on the defense of justification. We disagree. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the defendant (People v Steele, 26 N.Y.2d 526), there is no reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that the defendant reasonably believed the use of physical force was necessary to defend himself or another (see, People v Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299). Further, the scope of cross examination of a witness is always subject to the broad discretion of the trial court (see, People v Thomas, 141 A.D.2d 782). Here, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in its rulings as to the prosecution's witnesses.

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Thompson and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hendricks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 3, 1995
214 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Hendricks

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. OLIVER GRANT HENDRICKS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 3, 1995

Citations

214 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
625 N.Y.S.2d 922

Citing Cases

People v. Wright

"The nature and extent of cross-examination is subject to the sound discretion of the Trial Judge" (People v…